Nicole H.

I have wondered the same thing.  I attend an open Covenant church.  What I have wondered in particular is what happens when an established Covenant church decides to be open and affirming?  If the pastoral staff that’s credentialed by the ECC tows the line by not publicly speaking on the matter, what are the implications.  Are they (the ECC credentialed staff) guilty by association?  The church is not controlled by the denomination.  Could they be withdrawn from fellowship within the denomination?

I think the biggest barrier that Leah ran into is the fact that it was a church plant initiated from the denominational office rather than by other efforts such as a plant being started by an established church.  Even the denomination is constrained by the resolution.  Church plants receive funding from the denomination.  Leah was credentialed by the denomination.

The sad bottom line is that the pastors (those who’s credentials are issued and maintained by the ECC) in the local churches and the leadership at the denominational level are constrained by the current policies.  There are plenty out there who disagree with the current resolutions and policies, but in order for there to be bigger change, it won’t be top down.  The control in the ECC lies in the churches, not the denomination.

This issue poses unique challenges.  You have a denomination that traditionally has agreed on the traditional core tenets of the Christian faith suddenly adopting what is being called a resolution that has far greater impact than any other resolution ever has.  Church plants can lose their status and support.  Pastors can lose their credentials.  Combine this with more and more new and younger congregations that are less familiar with the process of change.  Church leadership may be aware, but they kind of have a gag order when it comes to being public about differing views.  How do you as a covenant pastor who has a congregation of people unfamiliar with the denomination that wants to change this speak out and tell your congregation about the process and guide them in the right direction?  It’s kind of convenient that those who’d essentially be the ambassadors to understanding of these processes reach you when you have to be so on guard because you can lose your license?  You can’t even really rally behind your congregation in such an effort even if every last member wants this.  Well, you can at your own expense, and there’s the rub.

The most common excuse for abuse of power and complicity in it was “for the sake of unity.” “The Covenant is a family– you don’t do things that cause dissension and split up a family.” I am very sad to hear that Leah has been the victim of those same forces and arguments.

As I left on good terms, it has been my privelege to serve as interim and pulpit supply in Covenant churches, to teach in them and at Pilgrim Pines. But, it breaks my heart to learn of Leah’s story and to learn that while many things have changed for the good, the struggle for a truly Gospel-centered church has a long way to go.

Your words are powerful and we hope that in the future people in the Covenant will see the wisdom of your stand and become a denomination that accepts and respects all people.

John and Opal Liljegren